Labor's carbon tax lie

[noco]

Please tell me you are joking for the love of all Christ. Do you even ever look at any News Ltd newspaper?



And this is relevant why?



Are you serious? Maybe you should run for the Nobel prize with your scientific knowledge clearly being better than the overwhelming majority of the planet's scientists.



Now I know you didn't just say that.



I love how you ignored every argument in the link I posted. Please keep your head in the sand.


There can be no logical, clear, concise debate nor conversation with anyone who refuses to admit that News Ltd has a massive political agenda in Australia. Every single newspaper they publish is nothing but bias in just about every article.

Well now comrade, why won't these so called SCIENTIFIC ALARMIST enter into debate with others who disagree with their opinion. They say the debate is over,well, let me inform you, it has only just begun.

Please tell me why this Green/Labor socialist left wing government will not tell us what this rediculous carbon (DIOXIDE) tax will do to either reduce global temperature or for that matter have any affect what so ever on our climate. Even the so called expert Tim Flannery says it could take 1000 years or more to make any difference of .5 of one degree in temperature.

Flannery also stated the seas would rise to the height of an 8 story building, yet he has bought two properties on the Hawkesbury River. He also stated in writing that Melbourne,Sydney and Brisbane would run out of water by 2009. So the Labor parties in Queensland, NSW and Victoria, on his incorrect advice, all went out and bought multi billion desal plants which are all now in moth balls.

Each Climate Change conference from Kyoto, Copenhagen and Cancun are less and less supportive and Durban won't be any better.

Give me a break comrade!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e-has-just-begun/story-e6frg6zo-1226111937932

 

[sails]

Noco, I have found it's no use reasoning with people like Starcraftmazter - you will mostly get more labor/green propaganda...

 

[joea]

Well now comrade, why won't these so called SCIENTIFIC ALARMIST enter into debate with others who disagree with their opinion. They say the debate is over,well, let me inform you, it has only just begun.

Please tell me why this Green/Labor socialist left wing government will not tell us what this rediculous carbon (DIOXIDE) tax will do to either reduce global temperature or for that matter have any affect what so ever on our climate. Even the so called expert Tim Flannery says it could take 1000 years or more to make any difference of .5 of one degree in temperature.

Flannery also stated the seas would rise to the height of an 8 story building, yet he has bought two properties on the Hawkesbury River. He also stated in writing that Melbourne,Sydney and Brisbane would run out of water by 2009. So the Labor parties in Queensland, NSW and Victoria, on his incorrect advice, all went out and bought multi billion desal plants which are all now in moth balls.

Each Climate Change conference from Kyoto, Copenhagen and Cancun are less and less supportive and Durban won't be any better.

Give me a break comrade!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e-has-just-begun/story-e6frg6zo-1226111937932

Well stated.
It appears that Flannery, Swan(plus others) are told what to say and how to say it to hold their jobs.
I wonder who by? WOULD NOT BE "BIG RED" WOULD IT?

And if you look closer to the Brisbane floods, you will find that the bean counter of the QLD govenment. made a order to run the dam higher to save $200 million by shutting the desal plant down.
Now their saying we have to pay a compulsory flood levey. Will move somewhere else before I do that.
joea

 

[noco]

Well stated.
It appears that Flannery, Swan(plus others) are told what to say and how to say it to hold their jobs.
I wonder who by? WOULD NOT BE "BIG RED" WOULD IT?

And if you look closer to the Brisbane floods, you will find that the bean counter of the QLD govenment. made a order to run the dam higher to save $200 million by shutting the desal plant down.
Now their saying we have to pay a compulsory flood levey. Will move somewhere else before I do that.
joea

No not big RED. I would prefer to pin it on the WATERMELON MAN.

Oh and BTW, I think Flannery should be named the next Australia's biggest idiot of the year

 

[Ruby]

Well now comrade, why won't these so called SCIENTIFIC ALARMIST enter into debate with others who disagree with their opinion. They say the debate is over,well, let me inform you, it has only just begun.

Please tell me why this Green/Labor socialist left wing government will not tell us what this rediculous carbon (DIOXIDE) tax will do to either reduce global temperature or for that matter have any affect what so ever on our climate. Even the so called expert Tim Flannery says it could take 1000 years or more to make any difference of .5 of one degree in temperature.

Flannery also stated the seas would rise to the height of an 8 story building, yet he has bought two properties on the Hawkesbury River. He also stated in writing that Melbourne,Sydney and Brisbane would run out of water by 2009. So the Labor parties in Queensland, NSW and Victoria, on his incorrect advice, all went out and bought multi billion desal plants which are all now in moth balls.

Each Climate Change conference from Kyoto, Copenhagen and Cancun are less and less supportive and Durban won't be any better.

Give me a break comrade!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e-has-just-begun/story-e6frg6zo-1226111937932

Noco, I think SCM is a plant - either the crazy left or Getup (same thing I suppose) who just regurgitates the propaganda he is fed without doing any of his own research. You can't have a proper debate with someone like that. I have asked him several questions which he has never answered. He keeps regurgitating the old "majority of world scientist agree........." nonsense when it has already been pointed out to him that that figure was culled from a poll in which 75 scientists participated. Ignore him.

 

[sails]

Noco, I think SCM is a plant - either the crazy left or Getup (same thing I suppose) who just regurgitates the propaganda he is fed without doing any of his own research. You can't have a proper debate with someone like that. I have asked him several questions which he has never answered. He keeps regurgitating the old "majority of world scientist agree........." nonsense when it has already been pointed out to him that that figure was culled from a poll in which 75 scientists participated. Ignore him.

Good to hear you feel the same way, Ruby. I think there are plants on a few forums around the place and they all regurgitate the same absolute rubbish and think us foolish people won't know the difference.

Funny too how many of them, like SCM had last week off, and that interestingly coincided with Gillard's new tactic of not talking about carbon tax. Been the same elsewhere especially on AGW and carbon tax. And they think no-one notices...

Honestly, they don't seem to have any more mentality than toddlers who think no-one will know who scribbled with crayons all over the wall...

And any sort of meaningful debate is a lost cause before it starts.

 

[Smurf1976]

There can be no logical, clear, concise debate nor conversation with anyone who refuses to admit that News Ltd has a massive political agenda in Australia. Every single newspaper they publish is nothing but bias in just about every article.

I would certainly agree that media bias does exist, though I don't believe it to be consistent across News Limited publications.

The Mercury (Hobart) editorials are clearly pro-Green followed by a general anti-government (whoever that happens to be at the time) stance. Many in the other states will claim News is actually against the Greens which suggests the bias isn't consistent and thus likely originates locally rather than from the top. That said, 20 or 30 years ago they were certainly anti-Green and in favour of whichever major party promised the most development. The bias changed when the editor changed, again suggesting it's local rather than from the top.

 

[drsmith]

Honestly, they don't seem to have any more mentality than toddlers who think no-one will know who scribbled with crayons all over the wall...

And any sort of meaningful debate is a lost cause before it starts.

There's nothing worse than a toddler that stays up past his bed time.

 

[banco]

I would certainly agree that media bias does exist, though I don't believe it to be consistent across News Limited publications.

The Mercury (Hobart) editorials are clearly pro-Green followed by a general anti-government (whoever that happens to be at the time) stance. Many in the other states will claim News is actually against the Greens which suggests the bias isn't consistent and thus likely originates locally rather than from the top. That said, 20 or 30 years ago they were certainly anti-Green and in favour of whichever major party promised the most development. The bias changed when the editor changed, again suggesting it's local rather than from the top.

I'd defy anyone who reads the Australian on a daily basis to claim that they don't have it in for the Government. I have no problem with them having a political agenda but they should just be open about it.

 

[sptrawler]

I'd defy anyone who reads the Australian on a daily basis to claim that they don't have it in for the Government. I have no problem with them having a political agenda but they should just be open about it.

But the question is does it matter? The Age and the S.M.H are currently pro government and the A.B.C generally is pro Labor.
So does that mean jump on the Australian because it disagrees with the Government, but don't jump on the others because they agree with the Government.
Where is all that heading?
Have a think about it, what if the press that disagrees ends up being correct and you backed the wrong horse.
Reminds me of a song " Back in USSR".
If the Government is correct and has made sensible decisions the outcomes will prove them correct. Unfortunatelly upto now that has not been the case.

 

[noco]

Noco, I think SCM is a plant - either the crazy left or Getup (same thing I suppose) who just regurgitates the propaganda he is fed without doing any of his own research. You can't have a proper debate with someone like that. I have asked him several questions which he has never answered. He keeps regurgitating the old "majority of world scientist agree........." nonsense when it has already been pointed out to him that that figure was culled from a poll in which 75 scientists participated. Ignore him.

"GETUP" IS AN OFFSHOOT OF THE GREEN/LABOR SOCIALIST LEFT and Bill Shorten, the assistant Treasurer, son-in-law of the Govenor General is a foundation member of GET UP.
And yes, these people are given their lines daily and all repeat them like parrots.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Show me where there is evidence of the illegal problems here in Australia as there have been in the UK before acting like a smarty pants full of propaganda?

Media bias is not illegal? Indeed, otherwise News Ltd would be out of business.

It's only your political bias that makes News Limited annoy you.

Of course not, it has nothing to do that every issue of their newspapers will have 10 articles ****ting on the NBN, ETS and anything and everything else the government does, while telling people to buy property and all sorts of other nonsense.

I think you are simply annoyed that labor is so far behind in the polls and so it's all Murdoch's fault. Much like Gillard blaming Abbott for all her mistates. It's time the left AND Gillard/Swan started taking responsibility for their own mistakes - which are many.

Mate you are completely off your rocker. I do not give two ****s about any polls, and I certainly don't give two ****s about that old lizard.

I would certainly agree that media bias does exist, though I don't believe it to be consistent across News Limited publications.

The Mercury (Hobart) editorials are clearly pro-Green followed by a general anti-government (whoever that happens to be at the time) stance.

I do not look at their bias as being pro or anti political party. News Ltd does not care about political parties, it only cares about it's agenda and it will support whichever parties support it's agenda at the time.

Take any issues from the Australian, it is full of complete crap - so much so it's unbelievable it is legal to print.




Also as a general note to whatever posters argue about global warming, I'm completely uninterested in debating global warming, there's plenty of science forums you can venture to do that if you so please, but to me proponents of anti-global warming are not different than the flat earth society.

 

[DB008]

Media bias is not illegal? Indeed, otherwise News Ltd would be out of business.

And the ABC?

 

[sails]

Media bias is not illegal? Indeed, otherwise News Ltd would be out of business.

Of course not, it has nothing to do that every issue of their newspapers will have 10 articles ****ting on the NBN, ETS and anything and everything else the government does, while telling people to buy property and all sorts of other nonsense.

Oh poor diddems. Go and get a tissue. I didn't hear you complaining in 2007. And voters are not as stupid as you think. It's poor sportsmanship to complain and want to move the goal posts just because your side isn't winning.

If greenies like you had tried to move the goal posts when you were winning, it would be more believable. But to do it now is nothing but terrible sportsmanship. This sour grapes / lack of sportmanship is entirely obvious to your less than smart voters

Mate you are completely off your rocker. I do not give two ****s about any polls, and I certainly don't give two ****s about that old lizard.

Then are you a greenie? Something is motivating you to post so much propaganda. Are you with GetUp?

I do not look at their bias as being pro or anti political party. News Ltd does not care about political parties, it only cares about it's agenda and it will support whichever parties support it's agenda at the time.

Oh dear - do you have any idea how business works? Probably not. With the exception of the ABC, all other media are in the business of selling the news. Media are more likely biased to opinion polls and I do agree with you that they are not political. But to blame them for being ANTI the nonsense that Gillard keeps dishing out is ridiculous. Aussie taxpayers have a right to know what is going on and Gillard has put people off her all on her own, imo.

Take any issues from the Australian, it is full of complete crap - so much so it's unbelievable it is legal to print.

Media PROPAGANDA .

Also as a general note to whatever posters argue about global warming, I'm completely uninterested in debating global warming, there's plenty of science forums you can venture to do that if you so please, but to me proponents of anti-global warming are not different than the flat earth society.

Flat earth PROPAGANDA .

 

[Logique]

...regurgitating the old "majority of world scientist agree........." nonsense when it has already been pointed out to him that that figure was culled from a poll in which 75 scientists participated. Ignore him.

Yes true Ruby, the source is one poll of this small sample size. But even today, the old '97% of scientists being ignored' line is trotted out by the warmists.

Fashionable science isn't always correct science. Ask Copernicus or Kepler. Ask Galileo. Ask Columbus. Ask the two Australian scientists awarded the Nobel prize for medicine for their discovery that stomach ulcers can be caused by a bacterial infection. (Robin Warren and Barry Marshall showed the bacterium Helicobacter pylori plays a key role in the development of both stomach and intestinal ulcers).

Big Bang Theory series on tv: Dean to scientists: 'What is our business here?' - Scientists: 'Science?' - Dean: 'No, our business is money'. Need I say more.

 

[Julia]

I don't think it any longer has much to do with "the science". It is now all political and a case of following the money.
Happy to have someone correct me on this.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

And the ABC?

The only thing I watch on ABC (and in fact on any station) is lateline business, and that seems fine to me. I do not like any mainstream media.

I don't think it any longer has much to do with "the science". It is now all political and a case of following the money.
Happy to have someone correct me on this.

I'm following the money.....

....low income families
....green technology research and development
....big lobbying businesses

Apart from the last one it all looks good. If people were smarter, then the last one would not have to receive any money, as whatever campaigning they would do if they didn't receive subsidies would be irrelevant.

 

[sails]

Full story from ABC: Abbott's carbon tax rollback to cost $27b

The Coalition's plan to dump the Government's carbon tax will cost $27 billion over four years, the documents say, while plans to wind back the Government's Minerals Resources Rent Tax would cost $11 billion.

This is sickending and surely it makes it even more essential that Gillard's carbon tax is taken to the people by way of election or referrendum BEFORE she forces it on this country? She is going to make it almost impossible to get rid of it and push Australia further into debt IF the majority want it unwound.

If the people want it this tax, then there is no need to roll it back. If it is rejected, then taxpayers save $27 Billion to unwind it.

Surely Gillard is being irresponsible to even consider enforcing this when opinion polls are so clearly showing the majority don't want it. We are not talking about spare change here and I doubt that her costings are going to be anything close what she states given her history of bungles.

With possibly millions in abatements going overseas, there are likely many black holes hidden in this tax that haven't even been thought of yet.

IMO, this MUST be put to the people BEFORE it is forcibly imposed on us.

 

[joea]

I don't think it any longer has much to do with "the science". It is now all political and a case of following the money.
Happy to have someone correct me on this.

Julia
You have summed it up exactly. Its about the money. Not even redistribution, but about how to keep the money rolling into a government which is sending us broke.
This government has not got the money to get to the next election without implementing new taxes.
IMO it was never about science and the environment.
joea

p.s. Sails above is correct. It must go to the people.
And he know that when it does it will not be forced on to the Australian people.
Australia is a democracy or was until Rudd and Big Red got into power.joea

 

[Logique]

Full story from ABC: Abbott's carbon tax rollback to cost $27b

This is sickending and surely it makes it even more essential that Gillard's carbon tax is taken to the people by way of election or referrendum BEFORE she forces it on this country? She is going to make it almost impossible to get rid of it and push Australia further into debt IF the majority want it unwound.

If the people want it this tax, then there is no need to roll it back. If it is rejected, then taxpayers save $27 Billion to unwind it.

Surely Gillard is being irresponsible to even consider enforcing this when opinion polls are so clearly showing the majority don't want it. We are not talking about spare change here and I doubt that her costings are going to be anything close what she states given her history of bungles.

With possibly millions in abatements going overseas, there are likely many black holes hidden in this tax that haven't even been thought of yet.

IMO, this MUST be put to the people BEFORE it is forcibly imposed on us.

I'd have thought just cause for a trip out to Government House at Yarralumla, for a cup of tea with the Governor General. Before the national credit is maxed out in pursuit of the Labor/Green impractical ideologies and lust for power and control.